Collingwood List Management Thread

[Scodog10]

Unlikely but id love to do this trade:

Beams, Thomas, Gordon

for

Toy, Hine, 2nd pick (likely 15-20 range)

GC's second pick will be an end of 1st round priority pick at around 28 (Brisbane have activated an end of 1st round compensation pick which I believe takes precedence). Toy, Hine and pick 28 depending on how Collingwood rate Thomas (which I believe is highly) more than likely won't get the job done.

If Beams were to be traded to GC I personally would be far more interested in making the deal something along the lines of.

Beams + Gordon + 26

for

Jolly + GC's pick 4

We then trade pick 4 to GWS for pick one in the mini-draft, so effectively for O'Meara. With Hartley possibly coming on board throwing in Gordon costs us nothing.

*Note* I'm not in favour of any of this it's just under the extremely unlikely circumstances that Beams wanted to move north and made GC his preference. As well as GWS accepting pick 4 for the first pick in the mini draft.

 

[PieBeast]

Beams is worthy of pick 4 on his own but he won't be going anywhere.
On the other hand I'll be surprised if J Mac and Goldsack don't feature in the trade week.

 

[Ron]

Beams is worthy of pick 4 on his own but he won't be going anywhere.
On the other hand I'll be surprised if J Mac and Goldsack don't feature in the trade week.

This is probably our best case scenario to be honest. These two will want more opportunities, and i wont begrudge them that at all. If they are traded for draft picks, then we wont be required to delist anyone. Maybe we will get rid of one or two more but if J Mac and Goldy leave there wont be many other changes.

 

[Scodog10]

Beams is worthy of pick 4 on his own but he won't be going anywhere.

Whilst we may think so (and rightly so), I very much doubt that those in charge of GC's list management would! Also note that I included Jolly who would be worth more than pick 26 and Gordon on the open market.

 

[Ed D]

Whilst we may think so (and rightly so), I very much doubt that those in charge of GC's list management would! Also note that I included Jolly who would be worth more than pick 26 and Gordon on the open market.

I don't think it really matters in the end. Beams has said he wants to stay at the Pies more than once and Collingwood don't want to trade him.

 

[Scodog10]

I don't think it really matters in the end. Beams has said he wants to stay at the Pies more than once and Collingwood don't want to trade him.

I also said that in my original post.

 

[PieBeast]

This is probably our best case scenario to be honest. These two will want more opportunities, and i wont begrudge them that at all. If they are traded for draft picks, then we wont be required to delist anyone. Maybe we will get rid of one or two more but if J Mac and Goldy leave there wont be many other changes.

Yep, I think Goldy can be quite handy at times but him being in and out of the side and least preferred option than Buckley tells me Mick doesn't have huge hopes for him, strong mail about him going to GWS too.
J Mac is definitely dispensable.
Of the kids that are being mentioned as possible delistings Farmer has shown the least.

Whilst we may think so (and rightly so), I very much doubt that those in charge of GC's list management would! Also note that I included Jolly who would be worth more than pick 26 and Gordon on the open market.

Thats fair enough mate but Beamsy is a seriously good player and I wouldn't be happy with him being traded for a "potential" 17 year old star.
And I honestly think we are no chance of getting Jaeger going by what I've read.

 

[Nicco_jj]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

Can someone tell me how GWS could reject one of these deals as a trade for Jager O'Mera (is that how u spell it?)

1. Buckley, Goldsack and Farmer/stubbs

2. J-Mac, Buckley, farmer/stubbs

3. J-Mac, Goldsack, Farmer/stubbs.

Where I have said Farmer/Stubbs - could we trade both of them (so 4 players) for Jager?
Surely there are not too many clubs who could offer something like that (a premiership player)?

 

[JOELY]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

Can someone tell me how GWS could reject one of these deals as a trade for Jager O'Mera (is that how u spell it?)

1. Buckley, Goldsack and Farmer/stubbs

2. J-Mac, Buckley, farmer/stubbs

3. J-Mac, Goldsack, Farmer/stubbs.

Where I have said Farmer/Stubbs - could we trade both of them (so 4 players) for Jager?
Surely there are not too many clubs who could offer something like that (a premiership player)?

They would laugh in our faces.

 

[mdc]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

They would laugh in our faces.

Not if we also include Ryan Cook and Sam Iles.

 

[Knightmare]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

Can someone tell me how GWS could reject one of these deals as a trade for Jager O'Mera (is that how u spell it?)

1. Buckley, Goldsack and Farmer/stubbs

2. J-Mac, Buckley, farmer/stubbs

3. J-Mac, Goldsack, Farmer/stubbs.

Where I have said Farmer/Stubbs - could we trade both of them (so 4 players) for Jager?
Surely there are not too many clubs who could offer something like that (a premiership player)?

Throwing 3/4 fringe players WILL NOT get a quality player or pick in return.

What you have suggested is like St Kilda offering Dean Polo, Ryan Gamble and Zac Dawson for Dale Thomas.

What looks likely with regard to O'Meara is that Gold Coast trade pick 4 + 28/29. Which I doubt any club could match.

A good option would be to go after the 3rd of the 17 year olds and target possibly Jake Stringer. But again won't be cheap with something like: Goldsack, McCarthy + pick 26 to get this done.

 

[Quicky]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

Can someone tell me how GWS could reject one of these deals as a trade for Jager O'Mera (is that how u spell it?)

1. Buckley, Goldsack and Farmer/stubbs

2. J-Mac, Buckley, farmer/stubbs

3. J-Mac, Goldsack, Farmer/stubbs.

Where I have said Farmer/Stubbs - could we trade both of them (so 4 players) for Jager?
Surely there are not too many clubs who could offer something like that (a premiership player)?

This trade scenario falls under rule number 1:

Number 1: Quantity does not equal quality.

The big one. The old adage is you have to give something to get something. It has been happening for years and there are very few trades that significantly benefit one side. "West Coast wouldn't trade Kerr for Brisbane's 2nd rounder, but maybe they would for Brisbane's 2nd rounder + Moody + Mills + Garner". You can't get gold with a piece of crap. And 2 pieces of crap doesn't make it more appealing. I think a lot of supporters see it as a way to clear their fringe players for a genuine star of the competition.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=491267

This is one of my all time favourite threads on BigFooty. Worth checking out.

 

[Lockyer24]

Re: 2011 Collingwood Draft Prospects Thread

They would want a good player/pick plus a Goldsack/McCarthy on top at worst

Competition will be stiff for him, won't be able to just package up all our C graders

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

This trade scenario falls under rule number 1:



http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=491267

This is one of my all time favourite threads on BigFooty. Worth checking out.

Agree totally on the 17yo picks, looks like they will be hotly contested.

But... a new club with 50 spots and oodles of money and zero experienced players is (almost) a unique scenario.
The two ex-Pies boys have been good value for the Suns. As have Harris & so on. Might give you a slightly bigger lump of lead for your lump of lead and a couple of pieces of poop, to continue your analogy.

Why wouldn't they look at upgrading picks for half-decent younger fringe guys??

 

[Quicky]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

Agree totally on the 17yo picks, looks like they will be hotly contested.

But... a new club with 50 spots and oodles of money and zero experienced players is (almost) a unique scenario.
The two ex-Pies boys have been good value for the Suns. As have Harris & so on. Might give you a slightly bigger lump of lead for your lump of lead and a couple of pieces of poop, to continue your analogy.

Why wouldn't they look at upgrading picks for half-decent younger fringe guys??

Yeah VV made a similar argument in another thread:

Those deals are too weak, but I have considered whether they'd be interested in a deal involving Macaffer/Goldsack/McCarthy/1st Round pick for one of those 17 year olds.

It's a lot to give (quantity wise), but we're talking about a Top 5 pick in the draft, essentially - A Dale Thomas/Scott Pendlebury level talent, potentially.

I have wondered if GWS might be interested in such a deal to actually fill out their list with more experienced AFL players. Sheedy has already said that they intend to take more uncontracted players than GC did, so it only stands to reason that they are (rightfully) concerned about the impact that a non-competitive early start could have on their franchise.

I think three AFL caliber players under the age of 25, two of them premiership players, could be a tempting offer to a side trying to fill out a best 22.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21606604&postcount=74

Thinking on it more I think you both make a solid point. It is a unique situation and certainly something they may be interested in given their lack of experience and need to be immediately competitive. Opens up interesting possibilities.

 

[Slattery_20]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

I think they'll get way, way better offers for the 17yo picks - unless you offer a really good player (doubt it) they'll get better deals elsewhere.

But... they've still got (roughly) one zillion picks. Why not have a good go at them.

 

[TradeDraft]

We won't be getting Nathan Brown Brother

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118489/default.aspx

 

[soreplums]

We won't be getting Nathan Brown Brother

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/118489/default.aspx

Too early to go after him anyway. He'd struggle to get a game at either end.

Wait until the end of 2013 when his contact expires and possibly both L Brown and Taz retire. Good time to poach!

 

[Zahki]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

I think they'll get way, way better offers for the 17yo picks

I see this thrown around a lot. Can you name some example 'way, way' better offers? Because to me I don't think any club will willingly trade away a top 10 player, even for such a high pick. What we're basically comparing is what club has the best player they'd be willing to part with, and since we have a ton of depth at the moment I think we compare favorably. Sure we'll get outbid if Hawthorn slap Buddy or Hodge on the table, or Geelong offer up Selwood, but thats not going to happen, they're going to offer fringe players they can afford to give up, not superstars.

 

[soreplums]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

Popped into Chaddy shopping centre and saw Ben Reid doing some shopping with Sinclair and Thomas. Gee Sinclair looks like a cheeky bugger!

 

[Nicco_jj]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

I see this thrown around a lot. Can you name some example 'way, way' better offers? Because to me I don't think any club will willingly trade away a top 10 player, even for such a high pick. What we're basically comparing is what club has the best player they'd be willing to part with, and since we have a ton of depth at the moment I think we compare favorably. Sure we'll get outbid if Hawthorn slap Buddy or Hodge on the table, or Geelong offer up Selwood, but thats not going to happen, they're going to offer fringe players they can afford to give up, not superstars.

Totally agree.
seriously, we could even chuck dick in. so J-Mac, Goldsack and Dick for a 17 year old who might be good? I think thats a good offer. and as i've said - if that is the best offer theyre getting - we win. The only other thing i can see happening is GWS trading Jager for some really high draft picks - but who to?

 

[soreplums]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

Totally agree.
seriously, we could even chuck dick in. so J-Mac, Goldsack and Dick for a 17 year old who might be good? I think thats a good offer. and as i've said - if that is the best offer theyre getting - we win. The only other thing i can see happening is GWS trading Jager for some really high draft picks - but who to?

Unless they are going to on trade those picks for experienced players it wouldn't serve GWS to use those picks in the 2011 draft as they already have the best picks. They would be better off trading for compensation picks for 2012 if they were thinking of using them.

 

[Scodog10]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

Totally agree.
seriously, we could even chuck dick in. so J-Mac, Goldsack and Dick for a 17 year old who might be good? I think thats a good offer. and as i've said - if that is the best offer theyre getting - we win. The only other thing i can see happening is GWS trading Jager for some really high draft picks - but who to?

That's a bit of an understatement, these kids are the cream of what will be one of the strongest drafts we've ever seen. Barring injury each of the 4 kids that go under the scheme will be twice as good as the players we're talking about trading to get them.

If we could walk away with Stringer, O'Meara or Crouch at the end of the year without an offer of J-Mac, Goldy and Dick being gazumped we've done extremely well for ourselves

 

[blaze036]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

these boys are 17 so no club is going to give an established star, as these kids are by no means guarenteed stars at such a young age. so we may be in the running giving some quality like mcarthy mcaffer goldsack wood ect ect however would have to give our top pick or two as well

 

[loki04]

Re: Future Magpies Watch '11

these boys are 17 so no club is going to give an established star, as these kids are by no means guarenteed stars at such a young age. so we may be in the running giving some quality like mcarthy mcaffer goldsack wood ect ect however would have to give our top pick or two as well

A few years ago these kids would of been drafted at 17 so its not as big a risk as you might think ie B.Reid